Forum:How to indicate a page to be erased?
* Please, do we have an instruction to mark a page (no longer used) to be erased? Something similar to the wikipedia ? Thanks, --Tasc 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) :The seems to work, though I don't know if anyone is systematically checking the depository to see if anyone has asked for deletions. Also, there may be a bug or two in this set up. Didn't work quite seamlessly, but it did work. I deleted my test example, and a couple of other pages that had accumulated there in the last 4 months. Be sure to include a reason, and perhaps your signature. following the 'pipe' in the magic word. Bill 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :Yes, I copied the Central Wikia Template:Delete a few months ago. (We have many templates that are the same as Wikipedia's - so try one if in doubt!) See my reason for creating a separate template. But I've not recently looked at where they are listed either. No doubt someone who sees a request unanswered and is keen to see it actioned can use Forum:Help desk. Something every admin's user page might link to? Robin Patterson 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ::Thanks a lot.--Tasc 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :::Do, please, be clear. Do we use {delete} or {delete|reason}? :::And if it is {delete|reason}, can that reason be two paragraphs long - I mean, is the template limited to one word only? And what is the magic that Bill is talking about? :::Thanks! Zephyrinus 23:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) ::::If you have reread what's above and looked at Template talk:Delete but STILL want your question answered somehow, come back to us! (Most templates are, or should be, explained on their own pages - using "noinclude" - or their talk pages.) Robin Patterson 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC) :::::I think I understand now. Let me be sure: Both {delete} and {delete|reason} put the same Notice on the page, but {delete|reason} allows you to include a reason ("reason") for the deletion in the template ("{ { } }") instead of going back and clicking on the link included in the Notice. Yes? :::::My miscue with regards to Bill's reference to a "magic word" came from the full stop after the word "signature". I read "following the 'pipe' in the magic word" as a new sentence and I couldn't figure out - well, the pipe was between two words, it wasn't in any word, and "reason" does some magic too, but the pipe isn't after that word. Robin's answer caused me to read Bill's reply without the full stop and things made sense. :::::Sigh. Being inconsistently pendantic toward other people's words and works is a harsh, harsh burden to bare. :::::Respectfully, :::::Zephyrinus 00:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC) *Another sigh. This {delete|reason} doesn't seem to work quite right. See John Richard (1855-1894). *Zephyrinus 01:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC) ::::::As I said, its buggy. But it did work for me in test runs. Just not as smoothly as I would have expected. Bill 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) In answer to Zephyr's question about "magic", a "magic word" is Wiki for "short incantations" (my phrase) that generate some special response in the system. For example typing Today is , the day of , Results in "Today is , the day of , " There are LOTS of magic words, some obvious, some obscure, some rather mystifying. That, by the way, probably reflects PHP's origins in PERL---PERL programmers delight in coming up with very obscure and highly compact phrases that do amazing things that nobody understands how they work. Bill 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) :The names, eg CURRENTYEAR, are often not too obscure. Any that are too obscure for a significant proportion of potential users can be given a less obscure name that redirects to the standard one. Robin Patterson 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)